|
Relationship between developed and emerging markets
The
emerging markets are not yet immune from developments in the
developed economies.
Readers may
be aware of the word "decoupling" being increasingly used by
analysts to explain the difference in economic and financial
performance between the developed markets, in particular the United
States, and the emerging markets, particularly those in Asia. The
fact is that the emerging markets in Asia have continued to record
strong economic growth, while the US economy seems to be faltering.
Financial markets in Asia have also out-performed those in the US by
a substantial margin, and this was particularly obvious in 2007.
I am a little
sceptical about the somewhat excessive use of the word, which
suggests that the emerging markets in Asia are no longer dependent
upon the US, economically or financially. While intra-regional
trade in Asia has grown a lot more rapidly than that between Asia
and the US, indicating that Asian economies are becoming more
inter-dependent, the US economy is still the largest in the world,
representing about 20% of global GDP, although this ratio has been
slowly declining. And exports to the US are mostly
finished consumer products, while a significant part of the
intra-regional trade in Asia involves intermediate products, since
different jurisdictions specialise in different processes in the
manufacture of the finished goods. Information technology has also
improved the logistics of production and trade to such an extent
that now it takes less time for the macroeconomic conditions of an
economy to affect its trading partners through the trade channel. It
is therefore difficult to envisage a situation where the emerging
markets in Asia would become immune from, say, a significant
economic slowdown or a recession in the US, as "decoupling" might
suggest. It is of course a matter of degree. And we should observe
that, while there is a sharp focus on the economic outlook for the
US, its economic performance up to the third quarter of 2007, when
the sub-prime crisis gathered momentum, was still quite impressive.
Despite
the occasional occurrence of sharp world-wide
movements in asset prices, the difference in financial-market
performance between the US and the emerging markets in Asia has been
large enough recently to warrant the use of the word "decoupling".
But I think there is a need to distinguish between the short term
and the long term. The sub-prime crisis originated in the US and
thankfully, because securitisation has not yet caught on here, there
is no similar crisis in Asia, although financial institutions and
investors are exposed to losses in sub-prime structured products to
varying degrees. The resulting credit tightness, or credit crunch
as an increasing number of analysts are calling it, is also very
much a phenomenon specific to the US and the developed markets,
adversely affecting sentiment in their financial markets. Obviously
this was enough to generate shifts of global investment funds from
the developed markets to the emerging markets, which was further
encouraged by actual or anticipated exchange rate movements. The
World Bank, for example, estimated that capital flows to East Asia
in 2007 amounted to US$170 billion. As a result, the equities
markets in the emerging economies have outperformed those of the
developed markets by more than 30% in 2007.
But in the
long term, financial market performance reflects economic
performance. Financial globalisation, encouraged by financial
liberalisation in the large developing nations, seems irreversible,
and this, theoretically at least, points to the possibility of
increasing correlation among financial markets across developed and
emerging economies rather than the opposite, as global investment
portfolios naturally seek long-term benefits through
diversification. Although there is still a lack of empirical
evidence of increasing correlation, I believe that this just
reflects the fact that financial liberalisation is still underway in
the developing economies, notably Mainland China.
So, while
investors gain from the good performance of the emerging markets in
Asia, and many apparently buy the argument of financial
"decoupling", we should all bear in mind the possibility of this
being only a short-term phenomenon, at least to the extent that the
out-performance is not explained by better economic fundamentals and
prospects. We should note, for example, the dependence of some
emerging markets on external financing mobilised by global financial
institutions based in the developed markets, which are now
experiencing the credit crunch. The preoccupation of these global
financial institutions with tackling the sub-prime crisis may result
in a deterioration of external financing conditions for these
emerging markets, and there may be wider economic and financial
implications for them.
¡@
Joseph Yam
31 January 2008
¡@
Click here
for previous articles in this column.
¡@
|
|